Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

The really scary part is this: all these companies operate their own walled gardens and can do with them what they will. Freedom of speech doesn't really apply. Apple and Facebook are bad enough in the way they weed their "gardens", but Google is using the entire internet as it's garden. You can put up a web page about anything you like but if Google decides they don't like the content it won't show up in searches. Poof! You've been "disappeared".

But it is the meeting place of 1 billion people, and we should have a say on what affects us.

Only if the company providing the meeting place agrees. If they don't, then if you don't like the terms of service, I suggest you leave. It's not like there aren't other "meeting places" on the internet.

There are lists of rendered obsolete apps for Lion [nytimes.com], Mountain Lion [cultofmac.com], and IOS6 [mashable.com] in a few minutes of searching. I'm most amused by how Instapaper started on the iPhone, became a widely lauded app, moved to Android, and then the core idea was integrated into IOS6 as Safari's Offline Reading feature. I suspect it's only the Android users who are keeping the company viable now.

Why point at Apple when Microsoft is the grandfather of all this mantra of "hey, great idea! oh look, we built that into windows now!"

And then of course, one could say the same thing of Linux - free Linux did away with the market for SCO Unix, severely damaged Solaris, did worse to IRIX. All rendered obsolete or near obsolete because of Linux. With KVM in the kernel and Xen available free as well, eventually VMWare might find itself killed off as well.

Some of us power users _like_ having control over the bloated window title and dislike its lack of useful functionality such as the inability to "roll up" -- something that EVERY window manager should include out-of-the-box; thankfully some of the *nix Window Managers actually respect power users.

I've given up on Microsoft actually having a clue about useful GUI design after their Metrosexual UI; Apple is slowly heading that way by hiding essential UI elements s

There aren't any. That's why they're using hacks. Not every possible goal is necessarily achievable through legitimate, supportable means.

There are exactly two ways to do what they're doing legitimately: file bugs and hope Apple gives you an API for doing it and/or adds the feature to the OS, or get a job at Apple and add the feature to the OS yourself. All other approaches are inherently high-risk.

Either way, injecting your own threads into a running application and using those threads to binary-patch

There are exactly two ways to do what they're doing legitimately: file bugs and hope Apple gives you an API for doing it

I'd recommend that they do so alongside whatever workarounds they're currently using. This would let the developers start each release note with "Updated our workaround for Mac OS X bugs #X, #Y, and #Z", which would at least inform the users of who is ultimately responsible for the breakage by failing to address those bugs.

What features were "killed off" by Apple in a sense of withdrawing the public API from a third-party developer?

Buying them out is a different thing, since it doesn't prevent someone else from writing an app that does the same thing. It might be pointless once the feature is in the core OS, but then again, who's to say that a third-party app still can't do it better?

I think it's the fundamental flaw in the model which has been built over time with start-ups, and most especially with internet start-ups, that a particular platform will practically give hand-jobs to developers to take their API and do something with it, which help grows the platform, and allows the developers to grow as well. Then as soon as the platform has some level of maturity, the API is re-written, limiting its use, which then strangles the small dev start up which grew as a result of the API.

It's a fundamental flaw with bulding add-ons to a closed, proprietary platform. You're trying to make a business based on the fact that some, much bigger software company has overlooked something important in their own product, something which their customers really want and are willing to pay for (this is true whether their customers/potential customers are users or advertisers). At some point, the bigger company you're piggybacking on is going to notice you, and evaluate whether it's profitable enough f

Absolutely. It was a part of the business risk and realists approached with the attitude of being scared of anything that might become too popular. The ideal was to be popular but not popular enough for MS to bother doing their own version.

Why does Facebook even offer an API to developers if any time an app becomes popular they block them?

If you can get suckers to develop for a platform that you can shove them off to drown at any time, it ensures that you can buy their assets at firesale prices and face minimal challenges integrating them into your service, since they are already API compatible!

Perfectly sensible on Facebook's part, it's the sanity of the people who use the API that you have to worry about...

Except that doesn't appear to be the case, both applications are obviously using the api for something strictly prohibited. Find some sympathetic users that have been cut off for that reason then come make the claim

It's not just Facebook. All web sites are giving each other crap about people linking and embedding their content. Twitter is whining about getting cut of because of Vine is crocodile tears. They did the same to Facebook owned Instagram just a few months back. This is Facebook playing by Twitters rules. The web used to be about linking and combining each others strong points, but those days are over now. Companies seem to think that compatibility with others will be their downfall and anyone linking to thei

Saves them the cost of having the research and design new ideas themselves.They just wait for somebody to spend a lot of money designing, testing and building an idea, then cut off their access and copy it.I call this the "iOS" business model.

Well, what I do is add the folowing to my hosts file and point it to 127.0.0.1www.facebook.comfacebook.comlogin.facebook.comwww.login.facebook.comstatic.ak.connect.facebook.comwww.static.ak.connect.facebook.comads.ak.facebook.comcreative.ak.facebook.comfb.com

Your list is woefully incomplete, starting with the lack of fbcdn. Also, it's far better to do this per domain rather than individual hosts, although I don't know of a way that doesn't involve setting up your own DNS server -- something which most people won't do. Of course, there's Adblock and friends, but against a plague as nasty as Facebook, you need multiple layers of protection.

I remember reading something about this in a book titled "Undocumented DOS" a couple decades or so ago. I don't know if I'm paraphrasing or verbatim quoting, but it was essentially: "Your product may be a DLL in the next version of Windows."

I am constantly amazed that there are so many services that build upon Google, Apple or Facebook web authentication systems. It's just plain stupid for anyone to do that unless they are Google, Apple or Facebook as those services can eliminate your access to your customers ANY TIME they choose without you having any say in the matter.

it's a question of having a chance at something or having no chance at all. if your idea / product requires a social graph, you are pretty must SOL if you don't incorporate facebook.

If I see a service that REQUIRES a Facebook account, I will not use it whether it is free, paid or otherwise. And I am far from alone. Any developer that forces FB authentication in their apps or services is likely giving up at least 1/3rd of potential customer/users.

Depending on the service, having to use Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, etc. is much more preferable than having to create a brand new account that you will most likely only use once.

Granted, from a security perspective, it isn't that great.

How not? Say I have an account with an OpenID provider (call it "Google") and I want to log in to a website that's an OpenID relying party (call it "Phil's Hobby Shop"). So I go to PhilsHobbyShop.com and click the Google button on the log-in form, and only Google sees the password I use, not some small business somewhere in flyover country. And I only have to memorize one password, which I'd be more inclined to change often than if I had to memorize a separate password for each site.

It's a single-point of failure. If your Google account gets compromised (either due to Google's incompetence or yours), you're pretty hosed. Of course, this assumes that your attacker is aware of which sides you used Google authentication (or any other authentication for that matter).

There is always a trade-off between convenience and security: If you don't want to carry keys, you can leave the door unlocked, etc...

My typical workflow is "Does this site have a bugmenot login?" If not, am I okay with this

Why would you ever design a product that's completely and utterly dependent on a service provided by someone else, especially someone else who you view as a competitor or who may down the road view you as a competitor, without an iron-clad, air-tight contract guaranteeing exactly what services they'll provide you and providing scorched-earth-level penalties for their failure to provide service according to the agreed-upon terms? Anything less is pretty much a guarantee that they'll pull the rug out from under you as soon as they think it'll be to their advantage. I'm not a business type or some super startup guru, just a lowly techie, but even I can figure that one out. Gleh, what do they teach in school these days? That the Universe is all rainbows and unicorns and that everybody plays nice all the time?

The thing is, there was never a need for Voxer or Vine to tie into facebook in the first place. Facebook provides nothing to either app.I've seen this a sort of mentality a hundred times on apps in the Android Play store. Diet apps, health apps, personal finance apps, all tying into Facebook, which is arguably the last place you want apps sharing private information.

These developers just arbitrarily toss that crap in to be part of the in-crowd.

The idea was that you would go into Vine, Vine would search your facebook profile for friends of yours who were also using Vine and add them to Vine's friend list for you. That is providing real functionality. Now you have to manually search for and enter each of your friends one by one. So no, they aren't just jumping on the bandwagon, they are using the information from the Facebook API in a way that is so incredibly obvious that the fact that it is blocked makes you wonder what the hell the API was su

The idea was that you would go into Vine, Vine would search your facebook profile for friends of yours who were also using Vine and add them to Vine's friend list for you. That is providing real functionality. Now you have to manually search for and enter each of your friends one by one. So no, they aren't just jumping on the bandwagon, they are using the information from the Facebook API in a way that is so incredibly obvious that the fact that it is blocked makes you wonder what the hell the API was supposed to be fore in the first place.

From Facebook's perspective, the API is supposed to make being on Facebook more valuable and, therefore, help to retain users. Facebook's main asset is isn't user base. Facebook has the users, other sites don't and Facebook would like to keep it that way. Marketing to those users is how Facebook makes its money.

What you are describing is a migration tool. Once your Facebook friends have been moved to your Vine friends list, Vine doesn't need Facebook anymore and will be competing for those user's attent

Basically, Facebook's lock-in is your social graph, and they will fight tooth and nail to stop competitors from letting you export this from Facebook to elsewhere. It's been in the T&Cs since they first had an API.

Why would you ever design a product that's completely and utterly dependent on a service provided by someone else, especially someone else who you view as a competitor or who may down the road view you as a competitor, without an iron-clad, air-tight contract guaranteeing exactly what services they'll provide you and providing scorched-earth-level penalties for their failure to provide service according to the agreed-upon terms?

Probably because they assume that "on down the road" will be at least a few months, and companies don't seem to be thinking more than a few months ahead. Maybe that's just me, because I still can't see how Twitter makes any sense from a business standpoint. I can't believe they're still going. Evidently they're making money hand over fist. Obviously common sense is somehow the enemy of money when it comes to businesses that do things online with social crap.

Many many people, and therefor companies, are under the delusion that business is fair. Facebook would never do them wrong, hell they gave me an API right? They ignore what business practices are at the level of Facebook. It's parasitic at worst, thuggery most of the time, and the occasional tip to the waiter when things are just right.

It's really really hard to explain this to people that are brought up without the ability to see what is actually happening, but rather rely on voices to tell them what th

Why would you ever design a product that's completely and utterly dependent on a service provided by someone else...?

And why do people ask rhetorical questions without at least considering the most obvious answer?

Because there is only one facebook. One ebay. One Microsoft Windows. People don't dance with the devil because they're stupid, they do it because he owns the dance hall and it's either that or sit out in the cold. Even if you are snuffed out in the end, you may still have had more success (

But am I getting more success? I put a lot of time and effort and money into creating the product and setting up the business. And just when I'm beginning to see a return on that investment, that's when I'm most likely to get cut off. So I'm now out all that investment, and while I may have recouped some of it I'm probably looking at a dead loss of at least 50% of my investment. I would've been better off taking the money and putting it in a 12-month CD.

Why would you ever design a product that's completely and utterly dependent on a service provided by someone else, especially someone else who you view as a competitor or who may down the road view you as a competitor, without an iron-clad, air-tight contract guaranteeing exactly what services they'll provide you and providing scorched-earth-level penalties for their failure to provide service according to the agreed-upon terms?

Why would you ever design a product that's completely and utterly dependent on a service provided by someone else.

But this happens all the time in all areas of engineering and business. It's not a bad business model at all. People that base their business model on getting oil from OPEC have gotten rich beyond your dreams doing it, and they don't get 'scorched earth' contracts either (unless they're the US government).

The problem is that the service provider should know better than scare away mediators of its services. Especially Facebook, who is no OPEC and people can live just fine without it.

Most anyone running a business should know to diversify their product offering. Relying on a single platform for Your product is dooming yourself to failure. Relying on a single API, which you don't control, to run your business, is an even bigger mistake.

I don't think Facebook would be able to block automatic loading of pages (using the user's current cookies) followed by scraping. An API just makes it much easier to get the data, but you can still scrape whatever they won't let you use.

Let's use a game programming analogy. Say you're trying to extract information from a game for a console that has four tiled graphics planes. Each week, the game's program is updated through the network, and the layout of the tile textures and the map on screen and in the console's graphics memory changes subtly. So you can't just scrape the info by hardcoding addresses or tile numbers in graphics memory. Even which things are placed on each of the four graphics planes changes, as the console supports arbit [emubase.de]

It's really handy for a social network to have an API for login purposes alone. I have a site that sees quite a bit of traffic and the "Log in with [Social Network]" feature is useful for casual users. Facebook has always been a pain in the ass with their API. They make unannounced changes every so often that break login functionality. Twitter's API on the other hand, has always worked just fine.

It's really handy for a social network to have an API for login purposes alone.

For login purposes alone, OpenID would work, and that's what Google, AOL, Yahoo!, and Ubuntu use. Any web site can act as a relying party to let users log in through these providers without signing a long-term agreement, unlike with Facebook and Twitter that need an API key.

If their API (which I have not seen) lets see more than one in-link or out-link deep, then a crawler could traverse much of the total FB friend network. Their terms of service appear to prohibit crawling. They ASK the app just operate on the user and immediate friends at hand.

I know that there's this other social networking site called Google +, but hasn't FB already achieved a mass worthy of the attention of anti-trust regulators? This is the sort of action that got Microsoft and lately Google into trouble. Or does one need to pass a certain threshold of dominance to qualify as an evil monopoly?

Facebook Integration is intended to add to new things to facebook, or add some features to your sites from facebook such as authentication, adding like/comment type functionality, etc. I don't believe they ever wanted people to utilize the API to display facebook content on other sites or data mine the information just to provide an alternative interface to the same content. Facebook integration is great, it does all kinds of things and they have been pretty good with their API so far. A few peopl